Wednesday, May 8, 2013

TV

While Revolution was on hiatus, NBC aired Deception in its place. I tried to stop covering that show but stuck around because some of you e-mailed me asking me to. So let me break the bad news, there is no more for Deception. It got the axe from NBC today.

I checked and checked but couldn't find any other shows axed by the big four today.

They're supposed to be announcing their schedules shortly so there's going to be a lot of announcements about shows getting the axe -- announcements coming out all at once.

I really have grown to hate this time of the year. So much of what I like usually gets axed.

Netflix is offering one male dominated show after another. Amazon wants you to rank pilots and only one revolves around women and only one other one (out of eight) has a blended cast. The rest are all men, men, men. And we're talking John Goodman men. No one's waiting for the return of John Goodman. I don't mean to hurt his feelings.

Now the return of Roseanne and John Goodman together, a number of people would watch that. But King Ralph by himself is not an attraction.

May 8, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, three people (including a
nun) are found guilty of peace, Democrats on the House Oversight
Committee embarrass themselves today on Benghazi, Adam Kokesh plans a DC
action, Senator Patty Murray continues to call out rape and assault in
the military, Turkey and the PKK have a historic day, and more.

In peace news, a nun and two activists have been convicted today. Al Stefanelli (God Discussion) explains, "It is known as the 'Fort Knox' of nuclear storage
facilities. Within is what is known as 'highly enriched uranium.'
Located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the Y-12 National Security Complex is
supposed to be an impenetrable fortress. It was breached by three senior
citizens, armed with flashlights and a bolt cutter. One of these is an
octogenarian nun.Sister Megan Rice, 83, along with 57-year-old Greg Boertje-Obed and Michael Walli, 63 [. . .]" Tricia Escobedo (CNN -- link is text and video) adds,
"Armed with flashlights and a bolt cutter, they cut their way through
the fence, fully expecting to be arrested on the spot. Instead, they
walked
nearly a mile, cutting through four fences in all, breaching what was
supposed to be the most tightly secured uranium processing and storage
facility in the country."

Rice said she didn't feel obligated to ask the Catholic bishop in the
area for permission to act at Y-12. Challenged by a prosecutor about
whether it would have been a courtesy to inform superiors of her plans,
Rice responded: "I've been guilty of many discourtesies in my life."
.

The stage was set for Sister Megan Rice. Sister Megan took the stand
after 5:00pm and spoke for almost an hour, and yet she commanded the
attention of every last juror. The whole room listened in rapt
attention as she responded to Francis Lloyd’s questions, describing her
early childhood realization of the horrors of nuclear weapons, her
education in radiation biology in her master’s program at Boston
College, and her missionary work in Africa, teaching science and
building schools. She spoke of the sacredness of the Nevada desert,
taken from the Shoshone people ("illegally, breaking a treaty") and
desecrated by the effects of nuclear testing; she spoke of the suffering
of downwinders, the cancer caused in people and animals, and the $6
million apiece spent on each test. She spoke of the transformative
power of her participation in the Nevada Desert Experience. Besides
the "harmonious vibrations" emitted by the mountains and all the earth,
Sister Megan also felt in Nevada “the culture of silence, the culture of
secrecy” surrounding weapons testing and its consequences. "It was
extremely clarifying about the reality of the military industrial
complex of this country."Fast-forward to July 28, 2012. As Megan, Greg, and Michael
approached Y-12, Megan says they "prayed together, we were filled with
love and compassion" for the people who had to work in such a dangerous
facility. "We wanted to bring love and healing."She felt led by the Holy Spirit, and was more and more surprised to
find herself reaching the heart of Y-12. When Francis asked her about
the surveillance tape footage and the way she bowed to Mr. Garland,
Megan explained the Buddhist tradition of deeply reverencing each living
being. In response to questions about the extent of the damage she
did, she said lightly, "I could have repaired it!"As 6:00 approached, Sister Megan was still not quite finished
answering Francis’s questions. The judge dismissed the jury anyhow, and
when he did, Megan stood, folded her hands in front of her, and bowed
to the jurors as they filed past the witness box.

Last August, Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group posted a video by Adam Brimer (Knoxville News Sentinel)
of an interview with Sister Megan Rice during which she declares of the
action, "We were doing it because we knew we had to reveal the truth of
the criminality which is there -- and that's our obligation."

(Washington, D.C.)
– Today, during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, U.S.
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) questioned Secretary of the Air Force Michael B.
Donley and Gen. Mark A Welsh III, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, on the issue
of sexual assaults in the military, including recent allegations made against an
Air Force official, and strongly urged them to
revisit the current culture that fosters these attacks. Yesterday,
Senator Murray and Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) introduced theCombating Military Sexual Assault Act of 2013,
which would reduce sexual assaults within the military and address a number of
gaps within current law and policy, building upon the positive steps the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) has taken in recent years.

“The
fact that the SAPRO report that was released yesterday says that 62 percent of
servicemembers who report sexual assaults are retaliated against is really
disconcerting,” said Senator Murray. “Because if people are
retaliated against and there’s that fear of retaliation, we will never be able
to stop this. So can you please address that issue and talk to us about how we
need to make sure that the chain of command issue is not preventing these people
from really being protected from ever having someone go after them if they
commit one of these heinous acts?”

A key provision of
the Combating MSA Act is the formation of a new category of legal advocates,
called Special Victims Counsels (SVCs), who would be responsible for advocating
on behalf of the interests of the victim as well as advise the victim on the
range of legal issues they may face. The formation of the SVCs was modeled after
a current Air Force pilot program, which General Welsh addressed during today’s
hearing.

“In the victim care arena, we believe one -- maybe the
first game-changing thing we found, one of that collection of things we need to
incorporate, is the special victims counsel program,” said General Welsh. “The initial returns on the special victims counsel
program lead us to believe that victims are very happy with the legal advice
they get from the time they're assigned to the time they complete their legal
proceedings. We now have 265 victims from the last year assigned to the special
victims counsel.That person's job is the represent that victim and guide
them through the legal morass that goes along with prosecution of these cases.
It's intimidating. It's scary. And if you don't understand the law, it is
completely, completely baffling…So we think
special victims counsel will help over time. And we think the results of the
pilot program we're doing here will demonstrate that.”

Senator Murray is the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee. She also
serves on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (which she was the Chair
of until this year). The issue is one that she has repeatedly raised
and there may be more urgency for the Congress to address this issue as a
result of the arrest that became public Monday of Air Force Lt Col Jeff Krusinski who is charged with assaulting a woman in a parking lot and who had been, as Jennifer Hlad (Stars and Stripes) noted, "the chief of the Air Force's sexual assault prevention and response branch."

We're starting with Benghazi where a September 11, 2012 attack left dead
four Americans: Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Chris Stevens and Tyrone
Woods. Today the House Oversight Committee held a hearing on the
attack. US House Rep Darrell Issa is the Chair, the witnesses were the
State Dept's Mark Thompson (Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Counterterrorism), Gregory Hicks (Foreign Service Officer) and Eric
Nordstrom (Diplomatic Security Officer).

At many blogs of late, there's an effort to trash questions about
Benghazi (sometimes with insulting remarks that actually do insult the
dead from Benghazi -- whether the person intended it that way or not).
Often this comes with a whine that insists that Republicans didn't care
about the people who died in Iraq. As one of the few people who covers
Iraq every day, let me point out the hypocrisy in this trash that wants
to hide behind Iraq: They don't cover Iraq anymore. They don't give a
damn about it. They don't care US Special-Ops have increased their
number in Iraq since the drawdown. They don't care about the birth
defects in Iraqi children. They demonstrate this by never covering it.

Equally true if people die in incident A and people die in incident B
and people die in incident C, the fact that you don't feel enough
attention was spent on A and B is not a valid reason to attack
questions about incident C.

Questions should always be asked because the American people are the
ultimate oversight of the government. What we're seeing with certain
left bloggers and certain Democratic politicians is projection. They're
talking about what they feel Republicans did during the Iraq War --
they feel that was done and that feeling justifies (in their minds)
there doing the same today.

Libya also a sore spot because it was an illegal war and Barack Obama's
administration violated the War Powers Act -- and because Libya's
currently a disaster. So, please, these bloggers insist, speak of
anything else.

Like the bloggers, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee are an
embarrassment. We attended the hearings that started in October. At
that point, with an election looming, Dems on the Committee made
statements repeatedly about 'let's not rush to judgment, let's find out
what happened first and then we can have accountability.' By January,
after the election, there was no accountability. Though the State Dept
had claimed disciplinary actions including firings, no one lost a job.
Excuse me, 4 dead Americans lost their jobs and their lives. Other than
those four, no one lost a job. By the January meeting Democrats on the
Committee had a new tactic, 'we need to move forward.' Their prormise
of accountability was forgotten.

Repeatedly, the American people are told there is no story here. But
that doesn't appear to be the belief of the American people. That's not
surprising when there are still so many questions unanswered. This
reality was addressed in April when Secretary of State John Kerry
appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Ruth reported on the hearing in "Kerry pressed on Benghazi." In addition, in "Congress and Veterans" (Third Estate Sunday Review), Dona asked Ruth about the hearing.Dona: But I'm going to go
to Ruth. September 11, 2012, there was an attack on a US compound --
compounds -- in Benghazi, Libya. The attack left four Americans dead:
Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Chris Stevens. Ruth's
covered the issue from the start. This was a very big issue at the
hearing. I read the coverage in the mainstream press and was surprised
to learn that it was ridiculed and laughed at. That was the impression
the press gave about the hearing. That's not what Ruth saw and
reported. Ruth?

Ruth: I was wondering what I was going to be discussing. Now I see.
Yes, the press reports of the hearing were that Secretary Kerry was
upset or short or said that this was not an issue. And he did do some
of that. Especially before it was conveyed to him that there was, for
example, non-classified material that the members of Congress had to go
to a room to review and could not remove or copy. Secretary Kerry was
visibly surprised to learn of this. He stated he was unaware of it and
he would address it. This was not the only issue about Benghazi that
was new to him. He stated he would assign someone in the State
Department to work with the Committee on obtaining what they need. What
I am talking about right now did not make it into the reporting. That
is a shame because it showed a side of Secretary Kerry that was
cooperative and helpful. But the media, with few exceptions, seems to
have long ago determined that Benghazi is a story they will not cover;
therefore, they tend to alter reality when reporting on hearings.

Ruth's correct. I was there. We covered that hearing in the April 17th snapshot and our focus was Kerry's remarks on Iraq. Wally covered the hearing with "The budget hearing that avoided the budget," Kat with "I'm sick of Democrats in Congress" and Ava's with "Secretary Kerry doesn't really support women's rights."
But Ruth is correct and you can read her entry where's she's quoting a
key exchange. You'll find Kerry responding that questions have been
answered and information supplied -- which the press reported -- but
then Chair Ed Royce raises another issue about access to documents and
Kerry makes it very clear that he did not know this was taking place.
As Kerry would hear more from the Committee in the hearing on this, he
would announce that he was assigning someone at the State Dept to
interact with the Committee so that questions and issues could be
resolved. John Kerry was a Senator during Benghazi, he was not over
the State Dept. And let's be clear, it's not just that Benghazi got
distorted in the press, the press avoided everything about that
hearing. Find me anyone else who reported what Ava did. A Democratic
member of the Committee asked Kerry to make a pledge regarding funding
and the treatment of women and Kerry rejected it and ran from it. As
Ava reported, he did so less than 7 days after Kerry and the State Dept
were trumpeting -- in multiple press releases -- the G8 pledge regarding
women from the week before.

When there's an attack, I personally want answers. I never knew of the
attack on USS Liberty by the Israeli military in 1967 until I read this article by Jeffrey St. Clair at CounterPunch in 2003. (There are many things I don't know of.) I believe there should be an investigation into that.

At the end of the day, most Americans are not Democrats or Republicans
-- and you can see that reflected in the large number of people who
elect not to vote each cycle. But most Americans do identify as
Americans and they expect that that the government that takes money from
them will be able to protect them. When Americans die, there are
questions.

Whoring may be good for certain bloggers/pundits right now but most
Americans don't care about your partisan wars. What they'll remember is
four dead Americans and that you offered bitchy attempts at jokes when
people had questions. That's why most partisan pundits don't last
long. The media burns through them quickly because in a four year
period what they present to the American people is a partisan whore, not
an anlayst. A partisan whore who pretends to care about X when it's
their party but slams X when its the other party that's interested is
someone that Americans quickly see as as untrustworthy. The bulk of
Americans don't applaud your partisan wars but you can be sure when
there are dead Americans and you're not acknowledging that but you are
making bitchy little jokes, this does register with Americans and they
don't like it and they don't like you.

Not only does partisan whoring hurt their own self-interests, it hurts
the larger issue of transparency in America. For 12 years, the federal
government has excelled in obscuring, to put it nicely. Instead of
trashing efforts at transparency, people should be insisting on greater
transparency.

Of the Democratic Committee members, in some ways US House Rep Carolyn
Maloney was the best, in other ways, she was the worst. She was the
rare Democrat who could speak seriously about the attack and asked real
questions. However, she's also did more than a little drama. I'm not
really sure that a Congressional hearing is like a prose reading or
competition. Meaning, there's no reason for Maloney to create a
'special voice' when quoting Darrell Issa. She also ventured into
rather strange territory when she wanted to talk about her view that the
first response to Benghazi was "to attack" -- attack the president,
attack the State Department, attack --

As she continued down her never-ending list, a woman in front of me whispered, "Is she drunk?"

Is she drunk?

The woman was serious. That's a sure sign that you need to reign it
in. That's a sure sign that you've crossed a line. When a spectator
watching a public Congressional hearing is left wondering if a Congress
member is drunk, consider that a sign that you went just a little too
far.

And for the record, the first thing attacked was YouTube. The first
thing attacked was freedom of speech. And, in the end, a YouTube video
had nothing to do with the assault on Benghazi.

Maloney also wanted to waste time in public with bickering over how the House conducts business.

You are not the story. Your hurt feelings are not the story. Your
miffed ego is not the story. The story is what happened in Benghazi and
if you have problems with the Committee, you should really try dealing
with those in private. You do not come off well when you take those
kind of petty arguments public -- and certainly not when you do so in
the midst of a hearing about how four Americans died. Chair Darrell Issa: J. Christopher Stevens, US Ambassador to
Libya. Sean Patrick Smith, Information Management Specialist. Tyrone
Woods, Security Specialist and former Navy Seal. Glen Doherty, Security
Specialist and former Navy Seal. Our goal in this investigation is to
get answers because their families deserve answers. They were promised
answers at the highest levels when their [loved ones] bodies came home.
The President was there. The Vice President was there. The Secretary
of Defense was there. The Secretary of State was there. We want to
make certain those promises are kept on behalf of those individuals. We
also want to make certain that our government learns the proper lessons
from this tragedy so that it never happens again and so that the right
people are held accountable.

That's what the hearing was about.

Ranking Member Elijah Cummings insisted, "I want to be clear and I've
said it over and over again there's no member of this Congress -- be
they Republican or Democrat who -- fails to uphold the right of whistle
blowers to come forward." Really?

I'm having a real hard time remembering some widespread support of
whistle blower Bradley Manning among US Congress members. Elijah
Cummings also stressed the importance of "facts." To do so, he called
out Darrell Issa based on Glenn Kessler's fact check for the Washington Post
and then he immediately went into praising 'poor Susan Rice' and her
honesty -- but didn't cite Glenn then, did he? That's because Rice was
given Two Pinocchios for her Sunday talk show presentations last
September -- a fact check that Kessler again reminded readers of just yesterday.
So if Kessler's your standard, Kessler's called out Susan Rice's lies
as well. That's a fact. Cummings insisted he was interested facts but
clearly he wasn't as evidenced by his selective citation of Glenn
Kessler. In fairness to Cummings, Maloney had already cited the same
Kessler article.

Cummings was forever grabbing his notes and reading from them. He'd
read a comment (lengthy) from Leon Panetta or someone and then ask the
witnesses if they were calling Panetta a liar? It was ridiculous. So
were the attempts at drama that Cummings repeatedly destroyed by getting
his words mixed up, mispronouncing then, getting so worked up his
throat didn't make a word but sounded instead like a gear grinding, and
forever losing his place in his notes. He can take comfort in the fact
that no one wondered if he was drunk, at least as far as I know. Ruth will be covering the hearing at her site tonight.

Free Speech Radio News developed in a struggle for Free
Speech. During the 2000 struggle of Pacifica Radio, the Pacifica
Network News workers went on strike and they formed Free Speech Radio
News. They are attempting to raise $100,000 by the end of June to
continue broadcasting. If you're interested in donating, you can find
paypal information and a snail mail address on the FSRN home page.

Dorian Merina: Today fighters from the militant Kurdistan Workers'
Party, or PKK, began withdrawing from their bases in Turkey and are now
moving into northern Iraq. The action is part of a peace deal being
negotiated directly between the Turkish government and the group to end a
conflict that's killed more than 40,000 since the 1980s. FSRN's Jacob
Resneck reports from Istanbul.Jacob Resneck: The spring snow melt usually heralds what's known here
as the "fighting season." Last year was especially bloody with about
500 people
killed in summer clashes. But the fighting has slackened since the
Turkish government began negotiating with the PKK and its jailed leader
Abdullah Ocalan called a ceasefire in March. Kurdish politicians say
about 2,000 militants are now on the move following a withdrawal order.
There has been no confirmation from the Turkish government, which has
said the military would not interfere. The PKK is demanding the right
for Kurds to use their mother language in schools and public
institutions. The group also wants political autonomy. But it's
unclear how far the Turkish government is willing to go, and if a
specific deal has been reached with the PKK, it remains a secret.
Gareth Jenkins, an Istanbul-based analyst with John Hopkins University's
Silk Road Studies Program, says all eyes are on the Turkish government
to show its hand.Gareth Jenkins: We need to see something concrete from the Turkish government about
what it's going to give. It's been saying that it's not a bargaining
process and it won't make concessions. In reality it is a bargaining
process and it must make concessions.Jacob Resneck: Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is facing a backlash
from opposition parties for negotiating directly with the PKK. But a
recent poll shows 90% of Turkish citizens approve of the peace process.
Jacob Resneck, FSRN, Istanbul.

What's going on, what's this struggle between the government of Turkey
and the PKK? Turkey has been the part of many historical empires --
including the
Hittite, Byzantine and the Ottoman Empire. From 1918 to 1922,
Constantinople was occupied by the French, British and Italians. The
native population fought back, expelled the occupiers and the Republic
of Turkey was created. That's a very brief and incomplete history of
Turkey. Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described the PKK in 2008,
"The PKK emerged in 1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's
oppression of its Kurdish population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has
waged a relentless war of attrition that has killed tens of thousands of
Kurds and driven millions from their homes. The Kurds are the world's
largest stateless population -- whose main population concentration
straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the victims of
imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While
Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order
to accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these
are now at risk."

After many, many decades of conflict, the two sides are attempting a peace. BBC News notes,
"Kurdish rebel fighters have begun leaving south-eastern Turkey for
their safe havens in Iraq under a ceasefire, Kurdish sources say."
Selcan Hacaoglu (Bloomberg News) explains, "The bulk of the militants will have gone by the end of
June, Gultan Kisanak, co-leader of the pro-Kurdish Peace and
Democracy Party, said by telephone today. They are withdrawing
toward neighboring northern Iraq, taking precautions against
possible attack, said Kisanak, citing villagers in rural areas
of the country’s largely Kurdish southeast." Radio New Zealand adds, "PKK spokesman Bakhtiyar Dogan told Hawlati, a Kurdish newspaper, that between 200 - 500 fighters would withdraw on Wednesday.
They would, he said, leave from the Semdinli and Sirnak areas of Turkey 'on three fronts'." From Turkey, Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) files an article stating he can't verify anything. Constanze Letsch (Guardian) reports, "The Kurdistan Workers' party (PKK) has begun the withdrawal of its
fighters from Turkish territory, according to a Kurdish party leader, as
part of peace negotiations that could spell the end to one of the
world's longest-running ethnic conflicts." Hurriyet Daily News quotes Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Annc stating, "What matters to us is the result, and it looks like we are getting there."

If all goes according to plan the PKK’s 29-year armed campaign for
Kurdish independence (an aim that was later scaled down to autonomy)
will have come to a close. It remains a big if but the potential rewards
are huge. Peace with the Kurds would remove one of the biggest
obstacles to democratic reform and, in theory, ease Turkey’s membership
of the European Union. An end to the war that has cost over $300 billion
and 40,000 lives would bolster Turkey’s regional ambitions. It would
boost the political fortunes of Recep Tayyip Erdogan (pictured above),
the prime minister, who is hoping to become the country’s first
popularly elected president next year. The decision to pull out by October crowns months of secret talks held
between Hakan Fidan Turkey’s spy chief, and Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK’s
leader who has been held in solitary confinement on a prison island near
Istanbul following his capture in 1999. The precise terms of the
bargain remain unclear prompting opposition parties to trot out tired
conspiracy theories about American plans to carve out an independent
Kurdish state from Turkey. The claims have wide currency in Turkey where
anti-Americanism remains widespread. Members of a government appointed
“council of the wise” who have been touring the country to assure
citizens that, on the contrary, peace with the Kurds will cement unity
have been heckled by outraged nationalists, and, in some instances,
forced to flee.

The editorial board of the Guardian offers, "It is not often one can say without hesitation that conflicts are on
their way to being resolved, but on Wednesday in one part of the world
that is exactly what happened: as scripted in the peace process, PKK
fighters began withdrawing from the mountains in south-eastern Turkey.
It is not the first time in the last 30 years of warfare that this has
happened. Ceasefires have fallen apart before with bloody consequences."

Earlier this week, Maliki’s acting defense minister Saadoun Al-Dulaimi
came up with the extraordinary accusation that Turkey was “controlling”
anti-government protests among Iraq’s Sunni community. The allegation
hardly bears scrutiny but it is worth examining why, at this time of
growing crisis in the country, the Maliki administration should seek to
“externalize” its troubles and try to blame part of its problems on
another country.
Dulaimi certainly chose the most provocative terms in which to depict
what he says is Turkish interference in Iraq’s affairs which has allowed
anti-government protests to become a haven for “terrorists and
killers”. He said of areas where there has been rising Sunni unrest in
the face of divisive government policies that it was as if “Anbar or
Mosul or Samarra are part of the Ottoman empire”.
Dulaimi’s intemperate remarks will undoubtedly have been prompted in
part by Turkey’s granting of asylum to Iraq’s former vice-president
Tariq Al-Hashemi, whose arraignment on charges of running death squads,
subsequent trial in absentia, conviction and death sentence, have done
so much to wreck Sunni confidence in the Maliki government. What is
interesting is that the minister chose to link Turkey with Iraq’s Sunni
community, when in reality Ankara’s ties are actually with the country’s
Kurds.

The comments smearing Turkey took place on Sunday. All Iraq News reports that today Nouri "called the politicians to stop launching provocative sectarian statements." Today, Al Shorfa notes
that the Independent High Electoral Commission released the results of
the provincial elections held in 12 of Iraq's provinces. Despite
earlier reports that Nouri's State of Law would win 8 provinces, AFP noted it was only 7 provinces that State of Law won; "[h]owever, no list won a majority of seats in any of the provinces." Al Mada noted the reality at the top.
In Baghdad, for example, Nouri's State of Law held 28 seats. This
election reduced it to 20. The only immediate results are that State of
Law is not very popular. That doesn't mean Nouri isn't (or that he
is). These were local elections. People who like Nouri (yes, they
exist) might have hated the State of Law candidate that was running or
they may have not voted for that candidate because they didn't like
Nouri or . . . There are too many variables. Nouri wasn't on the
ballots. The results aren't a reflection on Nouri's standing or lack of
it.

But for State of Law, these are poor results. In a few months, the KRG
will vote (three provinces). State of Law has no support in the KRG.
That's be 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Supposedly Nouri's going to allow
Anbar Province and Nineveh Province to vote July 4th (this shouldn't
even be Nouri's call and the two provinces should have voted last
month). State of Law will lose those as well. Barring a miracle, the
province of Kirkuk will not be voting. So after Iraq's 17 provinces
vote? State of Law will be able to claim
only 7 provinces. That might be impressive if there were only, say, 10
provinces in Iraq. But 7 isn't half of the total to vote.

All Iraq News notes
Ammar al-Hakim (head of the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq) traveled
to Najaf today to meet with cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr.
Yesterday, the Iraq Times reported
on a study by the University of Brussels which found that Nouri
al-Maliki, chief thug and prime minister of Iraq, has a higher annual
salary than any of the royals or heads of state around the world.
(Egypt's President Mohammed Morsi has the lowest salary according to the
study.) Alsumaria reports
Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Moussawi insists that the report and study
are innaccurate and that Nouri 'only' makes about 35 million dinars a
month ($30,000 in US dollars). That would place Nouri at $360,000 a
year in US dollars. Whether it's true or not is debatable. In February
2011, protesters were demanding Nouri release information about his
salary. He gave them the run around and never managed to do so. $360,000
a year while so many Iraqis live in poverty?

Al Mada reports
that KRG President Massoud Barzani called, on his Facebook page, for
the Kurdish politicians to come together for the good of the Kurdish
population as they attempt to secure more rights. The KRG sent a
delegation to meet with Nouri recently and the visit went very well for
the Kurds. Nouri al-Maliki is supposed to travel to Erbil in the coming
weeks for another meeting. National Iraqi News Agency reveals
that the Kurdish blocs met today and agred upon the importance of
"previous agreements" being implemented "especially the agreement of
Arbil."

Part of the difficulty forming a government after the election was
the close result, and the dramatic implications of gaining or retaining
power in Iraq, where politics is often seen as a "winner take all"
proposition. In accordance with timelines established in the
Constitution, the newly elected COR [Council of Representatives,
Parliament] convened on June 15, 2020, but the session ended after less
than a half hour without electing a COR leadership team. The various
factions made little progress through August 2010, as Maliki insisted he
remain prime minister for another term and remained in a caretaker
role. The United States stepped up its involvement in political talks,
but it was Iraqi politics that led the factions out of an impasse. On
October 1, 2010, Maliki received the backing of most of the 40 COR
Sadrist deputies. The United States reportedly was concerned that
Maliki might form a government with Sadrist support. The Administration
ultimately backed a second Maliki term, although continuing to demand
that Maliki form a broad-based government inclusive of Sunni leaders.
Illustrating the degree to which the Kurds reclaimed their former role
of "kingmakers," Maliki, Allawi, and other Iraqi leaders met in the
capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government-administered region in
Irbil on November 8, 2010, to continue to negotiate on a new
government. (Sadr did not attend the meeting in Irbil, but ISCI/Iraq
National Alliance slate leader Ammar Al Hakim did.) On November 10, 2010, with reported direct intervention by President
Obama, the "Irbil Agreement" was reached in which (1) Allawi agreed to
support Maliki and Talabani to remain in their offices for another term;
(2) Iraqiyya would be extensively represented in government -- one of
its figures would become COR Speaker, another would be defense minister,
and another (presumably Allawi himself) would chair an oversight body
called the "National Council for Strategic Policies," and (3) amending
the de-Baathification laws that had barred some Iraqis, such as Saleh
al-Mutlaq, from holding political positions. Observers praised the
agreement because it included all major factions and was signed with KRG
President Masoud Barzani and then U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey
in attendance. The agreement did not specify concessions to the Sadr
faction.

The Erbil Agreement was a legal contract that went around the
Constitution of Iraq, it gave Nouri a second term in exchange for agreed
upon concessions from Nouri to the various political blocs.

Nouri used The Erbil Agreement to be named prime minister-designate in
November 2010. He then trashed the agreement. At first, he insisted it
would be a few weeks. Then weeks became months and Nouri never said a
word about it anymore. The protesters raised the issue in February
2011. By the summer of 2011, the Kurds, Moqtada al-Sadr and Iraqiya
were all demanding Nouri implement the legal contract he'd signed in
November of 2010. That still has not happened.

This is not a minor issue to a large number of Iraqis and today's
meet-up of Kurd politicians makes it clear that the Kurds are not about
to drop this issue. (Nor should they.)

On the morning of July 4,
2013, Independence Day, we will muster at the National Cemetery &
at noon we will step off to march across the Memorial Bridge, down
Independence Avenue, around the Capitol, the Supreme Court, & the
White House, then peacefully return to Virginia across the Memorial
Bridge. This is an act of civil disobedience, not a permitted event. We
will march with rifles loaded & slung across our backs to put the
government on notice that we will not be intimidated & cower in
submission to tyranny. We are marching
to mark the high water mark of government & to turn the tide. This
will be a non-violent event, unless the government chooses to make it
violent. Should we meet physical resistance, we will peacefully turn
back, having shown that free people are not welcome in Washington, &
returning with the resolve that the politicians, bureaucrats, &
enforcers of the federal government will not be welcome in the land of
the free. When the people fear their government, there is
tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. -
Thomas Jefferson Does the government fear the people? If not, something is wrong, and we aim to change it. There's a remote chance that there will be violence as there has been
from government before, and I think it should be clear that if anyone
involved in this event is approached respectfully by agents of the
state, they will submit to arrest without resisting. We are truly saying
in the SUBTLEST way possible that we would rather die on our feet than
live on our knees. You are welcome to attend unarmed as a
supporter, or armed with a recording device. We especially invite law
enforcement officers to stand with us armed however they feel is
appropriate. If any law enforcement officers would like to volunteer in
any way, please email adam@adamvstheman.com If this page gets
to 10,000 attendees by June 1st, & we have the critical mass
necessary to pull this off, (1,000 actual attendees) we will march.
Please spread the word, share this event, & invite all your friends.
If law enforcement policy for the public space in front of the National
Cemetery prevents open carry there, we will rally at the next closest
area where we can legally open carry. UPDATE 130506 Now that
it's undeniable that this is going to happen, allow me to make clear
how. There will be coordination with DC law enforcement prior to the
event. I will recommend that they do the best they can to honor their
oaths and escort us on our route. Failing to provide that commitment to
safety, we will either be informed that we will only be allowed up to a
certain point where we would be arrested. If this is the case, we will
approach that point as a group and if necessary, I will procede to
volunteer myself to determine what their actual course of action with
someone crossing the line will be at which point fellow marchers will
have the choice of joining me one at a time in a peaceful, orderly
manner, or turning back to the National Cemetery. Thanks to
everyone for the vibrant conversation, but we have decided to make the
wall of this event page specifically just for announcements and
important info for the event. Please feel free to comment, and continue
the conversation as you like at: http://forums.adamvstheman.com/viewforum.php?f=13

I'm going to be honest because Adam believes in honesty, I read that and
thought [unprintable]. Then I thought it really is the perfect Adam
Kokesh action. While everyone else toys with talk, he wants people to
know their rights and stages actions that shine a light. Is there a
danger? There's a danger with every protest -- more often that they
will be attacked. I wouldn't have known about this if Andrea Ayres-Deets (Policy Mic) hadn't attacked the action
and Adam. I'm glad she did. I'm a feminist on the left and Adam's a
Libertarian (he's also an Iraq War veteran). We have supported his
actions and statements and his right to make them. And sometimes I'm
asked about that and I say, "Why wouldn't we?" And it turns out, we'll
note this action as well. Andrea Ayres-Deets would do well to learn
about a topic before she writes about it. She's got an idiotic lecture
to Adam which only goes to the fact that she doesn't know a damn thing
about him. He's had encounters with law enforcement many times in DC
already. Her attack on Adam only succeeds in revealing how ignorant she
is of the topic she's writing about. We'll note the action and we'll
wish Adam all the best with it. As for Ayres-Deets, she should really
learn about people before snidely insinuating that they are "the man" --
unless she's trying to confess some sexual attraction (which would be
understandable, Adam's a sexy man).

An impressive share! I've just forwarded this onto a coworker who had been conducting a little homework on this. And he actually bought me breakfast simply because I stumbled upon it for him... lol. So let me reword this.... Thank YOU for the meal!! But yeah, thanx for spending the time to discuss this issue here on your site.